Equal Pay for Equal Work & Defending Pay Parity: Sabha Shanker Dube Precedent & Parity Rights for Temporary Employees

Equal Pay for Equal Work: Constitutional Mandates under Articles 14 & 39(d), State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh & Defending Pay Scale Parity | Sumanjari & Co. Advocates

Published by: Sumanjari & Co. Advocates

Section 1: Executive Overview & Practical Reality

The constitutional doctrine of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" represents one of the most vital judicial bulwarks against economic exploitation in public employment across India. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, executive departments, local bodies, medical colleges, and state universities routinely create dual cadres of employees performing identical duties: a small cadre of regularly appointed civil servants drawing full revised pay-matrix scales, grade pays, dearness allowances, and increments, working side-by-side with contractual, daily-wage, ad-hoc, and outsourced workers who perform identical or even more arduous duties while receiving a static, fractional monthly honorarium or bare minimum wages.

The ground reality in government offices across Lucknow, Noida, Prayagraj, and Kanpur reveals that contractual engineers, ad-hoc medical officers, guest lecturers, staff nurses, and clerical staff shoulder the primary operational workload of departments. Yet, when they demand parity in emoluments, the administration routinely asserts that parity cannot be claimed by non-regular staff due to differences in recruitment mode, absence of sanctioned posts, or budgetary constraints. Such administrative defense ignores the constitutional jurisprudence that has elevated "Equal Pay for Equal Work" from a mere Directive Principle of State Policy into an enforceable Fundamental Right under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

With the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148, the law reached absolute clarity: paying less to temporary, daily-wage, or contractual employees performing identical duties and responsibilities as regular employees constitutes an exploitative, oppressive practice that amounts to forced labor and artificial subjugation. For counsel practicing before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench and Prayagraj), Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), and UPPST, litigating pay parity demands a rigorous evidentiary comparison of duties, qualifications, and operational responsibilities to secure the minimum of the regular pay scale along with applicable dearness allowances.

Section 2: Statutory & Service Rules Framework

The legal foundations of the Equal Pay for Equal Work doctrine span constitutional provisions, directive principles, and labor welfare legislation:

• Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India: Directs the State to ensure that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women. While categorized as a Directive Principle of State Policy under Part IV, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when read in conjunction with Articles 14 and 16, Article 39(d) achieves the status of an enforceable Fundamental Right.
• Article 14 (Equality Before Law) & Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment): Forbids irrational classification. The State cannot classify employees into regular and temporary solely for the purpose of denying equal remuneration when the qualitative and quantitative nature of the work performed is identical.
• Article 21 (Right to Life with Human Dignity): Denying equal compensation for equal work degrades human dignity, forcing educated professionals and skilled workers to subsist on sub-humane compensation under the duress of unemployment.
• The Minimum of the Pay Scale Doctrine: Even where a temporary or contractual employee cannot be immediately regularized due to lack of sanctioned posts, they are constitutionally entitled to receive the minimum of the pay scale (in the corresponding pay band / 7th Pay Commission Level) applicable to regularly appointed counterparts, along with dearness allowances, as laid down in Jagjit Singh.
• Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 / Code on Wages, 2019: Section 3 of the Code on Wages, 2019 strictly prohibits discrimination in wages on grounds of gender or arbitrary status for the same work or work of a similar nature.

Section 3: Landmark Judicial Precedents

The jurisprudential journey of Equal Pay for Equal Work is defined by seminal Supreme Court and High Court pronouncements:

1. Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 (Three-Judge Bench):

The Supreme Court authoritatively elevated Equal Pay for Equal Work to a constitutional right. Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy declared that construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d), the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is deducible from those provisions and may be applied properly to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification. Drivers of the Delhi Police Force were held entitled to equal pay with drivers of the Central Secretariat.

2. State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh and Others (2017) 1 SCC 148:

In this monumental judgment, the Supreme Court synthesized over fifty years of jurisprudence and held that temporary, daily-wage, ad-hoc, and contractual employees are entitled to draw wages equal to the minimum of the regular pay scale (plus dearness allowances) extended to regular employees holding the same post. The Court held: "An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity... It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labor."

3. Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637:

The Supreme Court ruled that casual workers engaged in Nehru Yuvak Kendras performing the same duties as regular Class-IV employees must be paid the same salary and allowances. The Court firmly rejected the defense of the Central Government that the workers had accepted the employment knowing it was temporary and could not demand parity.

4. State of U.P. v. Putti Lal (2006) 9 SCC 337 (Constitution Bench Principle):

The Supreme Court held that daily-rated forest workers in Uttar Pradesh are entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scale admissible to their counterparts in the regular service, with appropriate allowances, during the period they continue to discharge identical duties.

5. Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer (2019) 12 SCC 297:

The Supreme Court reiterated the Jagjit Singh principle, ruling that daily-wage employees are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale even if their claim for regularization is pending or rejected. Parity in wages is independent of the claim of substantive regularization.

6. Dr. Ram Kishore v. State of U.P., 2022 (4) ADJ 128 (Allahabad HC, Lucknow Bench):

The Lucknow Bench held that contractual Allopathic Medical Officers deployed in Community Health Centers across Uttar Pradesh cannot be denied parity of pay scales with Provincial Medical and Health Service (PMHS) doctors when both perform clinical duties, emergency calls, and post-mortems of identical character.

Section 4: Stage-by-Stage Procedural Roadmap

Litigating a pay parity petition before the High Court requires meticulous evidentiary preparation across five tactical stages:

• Stage 1: Duty & Qualification Equivalence Audit (Day 1 to 15):Construct a comparative factual matrix. Document: (a) your educational and technical qualifications compared to statutory qualification requirements for regular posts; (b) official roster schedules, task allocations, and file orders demonstrating that contractual staff perform identical qualitative and quantitative work; and (c) supervisory hierarchies proving identical reporting lines.
• Stage 2: Gathering Official Pay Disparity Evidence (Day 16 to 25):Obtain official pay-slips of regular counterparts and government orders sanctioning revised 7th Pay Commission pay bands. Calculate the exact monetary gap between your fixed monthly honorarium and the minimum basic pay plus DA admissible to regular cadres.
• Stage 3: Formal Statutory Representation under Jagjit Singh (Day 26 to 40):Submit a comprehensive, structured representation to the Principal Secretary of the concerned administrative department. Formally demand pay revision to the minimum of the regular pay scale in terms of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148 and Sabha Shanker Dube (2019) 12 SCC 297. Specify a strict 30-day compliance timeline.
• Stage 4: Filing Service Writ Petition (Writ-A) before Allahabad High Court (Day 41 to 65):Upon rejection or lapse of the 30-day window, file a Writ Petition under Article 226 before the High Court (Lucknow Bench or Prayagraj). Pray for: (a) a Writ of Mandamus commanding the State to pay the minimum of the regular pay scale (Level in Pay Matrix) plus dearness allowances from the date of initial appointment or prospective parity; and (b) payment of arrears.
• Stage 5: Contempt Execution / Tribunal Enforcement:If the department fails to implement the High Court judgment within the time granted, immediately initiate Contempt proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 before the High Court to enforce financial disbursement.

Section 5: Tactical Offenses, Defenses & Critical Pitfalls to Avoid

To defeat routine government objections in pay parity litigation, counsel must execute targeted strategies:

• Tactical Offense — Demolishing the "Different Selection Process" Defense: The State's primary argument is that regular employees passed through a Public Service Commission (UPPSC/UPSSSC) written examination, whereas contractual staff were hired locally. Overcome this by citing Jagjit Singh directly: the Supreme Court ruled that mode of selection cannot justify paying less for identical work once the employee is performing the complete duties of the post.
• Tactical Offense — Utilizing RTI Disclosures for Duty Charters: File an RTI application requesting the official "Duty Charter" or job description of regular employees versus contractual staff. In 90% of departments, no separate duty charter exists—both cadres sign the same attendance register and discharge the same duties. This official admission is conclusive before the High Court.
• Defensive Strategy — Limiting Parity Relief to Avoid Immediate Rejection: Do not demand full perks, annual increments, and pensions at the first instance; courts may view this as seeking backdoor regularization. Frame the primary prayer for the minimum of the pay scale plus DA as settled in Jagjit Singh. This narrow, legally infallible relief is rarely denied by the High Court.
• Critical Pitfall 1 — Equating Incomparable Posts: Claiming parity with a post that carries significantly higher qualitative responsibilities, specialized qualifications, or distinct supervisory powers will lead to dismissal (see State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh). Ensure complete equivalence of qualifications and duties.
• Critical Pitfall 2 — Accepting Consensual Reduced Wage Agreements: Never sign an affidavit waiving your right to claim pay parity as a condition for contract renewal. The Supreme Court has held that such unconscionable contractual conditions imposed under unequal bargaining power are void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and violative of Article 14.
• Critical Pitfall 3 — Sleeping Over Arrears Claims: High Courts frequently restrict arrears of pay parity to three years prior to the filing of the writ petition on the principle of continuing wrong (see Union of India v. Tarsem Singh). Delay in filing reduces financial recovery.

Section 6: Ready-to-Use Court Drafting Template

Below is an unabridged, practical model of a Service Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, claiming Equal Pay for Equal Work under the Jagjit Singh doctrine:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

BENCH AT LUCKNOW

WRIT - A NO. 7410 OF 2026

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Dr. Anurag Sharma, Aged about 39 years, S/o Shri Krishna Murari Sharma,

Working as Contractual Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Chinhat, Lucknow.

2. Dr. Sneha Pandey, Aged about 36 years, D/o Shri Ram Prakash Pandey,

Working as Contractual Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kakori, Lucknow.

...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1. State of Uttar Pradesh through the Principal Secretary,

Department of Medical Health & Family Welfare, Government of U.P.,

Civil Secretariat, Vidhan Bhawan, Lucknow.

2. The Director General, Medical & Health Services, U.P., Swasthya Bhawan, Lucknow.

3. The Mission Director, National Health Mission (NHM), U.P., Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

4. The Chief Medical Officer, District Lucknow, U.P.

...RESPONDENTS

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS COMMANDING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK BY RELEASING THE MINIMUM OF THE REGULAR PAY SCALE (LEVEL-10 IN 7TH PAY COMMISSION PAY MATRIX) ALONG WITH DEARNESS ALLOWANCE TO THE PETITIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUPREME COURT RULING IN STATE OF PUNJAB V. JAGJIT SINGH (2017) 1 SCC 148

To,

The Hon'ble Chief Justice and His Companion Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

The humble petition of the Petitioners above-named respectfully showeth:

• That the Petitioners are qualified medical practitioners holding substantive MBBS degrees from recognized State Medical Colleges and are registered with the Uttar Pradesh Medical Council. Both Petitioners possess qualifications identical to those prescribed for substantive recruitment to the Provincial Medical and Health Service (PMHS) Cadre under the U.P. Medical Health and Family Welfare Department Rules.
• That the Petitioners were recruited as Medical Officers on contractual basis pursuant to an open, merit-based selection process conducted by the District Health Society, Lucknow, in the years 2017 and 2018 respectively, and have been discharging continuous, uninterrupted clinical duties for over eight years.
• That the Petitioners discharge duties identical to those performed by regular PMHS Medical Officers: conducting Out-Patient Departments (OPDs), Indoor Patient management, emergency trauma duties, maternal and child healthcare, medico-legal examinations, post-mortems, and attending VIP government protocols.
• That despite discharging identical clinical, administrative, and statutory duties, the Petitioners are paid a meager, consolidated honorarium of Rs. 42,000/- per month, whereas regular PMHS Medical Officers working in the same hospitals are drawing salary in Level-10 of the 7th CPC Pay Matrix (starting basic pay of Rs. 56,100/- plus NPA, DA, and HRA, totaling approximately Rs. 98,500/- per month).
• That the denial of equal pay for equal work to the Petitioners while extracting identical sovereign and clinical functions constitutes an exploitative and oppressive practice, directly violating Articles 14, 16, 21, and 39(d) of the Constitution of India.
• That the controversy is squarely covered by the authoritative Three-Judge Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148 and the subsequent ruling in Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer (2019) 12 SCC 297.
• That the Petitioners submitted an exhaustive joint representation dated 14.07.2026 to Respondent No. 1 claiming pay parity, but the Respondents have maintained an obstinate administrative silence.

GROUNDS

A. BECAUSE the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148 has settled that an employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities, and that denying equal remuneration strikes at the very foundation of human dignity.

B. BECAUSE the Petitioners possess the exact educational qualifications (MBBS) as regular PMHS officers and perform identical clinical duties under the same hospital administration.

C. BECAUSE artificial classification based merely on nomenclature—such as "contractual" versus "regular"—for the purpose of paying fractional compensation is discriminatory, irrational, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

D. BECAUSE under the mandate of Article 39(d) read with Article 14, the State as a model employer is constitutionally prohibited from engaging in unfair economic subjugation of skilled medical professionals.

PRAYER

Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

• Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to grant pay parity to the Petitioners by paying them the minimum of the regular pay scale (Level-10 of the 7th Pay Commission Pay Matrix) along with Dearness Allowance admissible to regular Medical Officers from the date of filing of this Writ Petition;
• Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to compute and disburse the arrears of the difference in salary to the Petitioners within a period of three months;
• Award the costs of this petition to the Petitioners; and
• Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Lucknow

Dated: 22.09.2026

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sumanjari & Co. Advocates

Section 7: Practical FAQs

Q1: What exactly does an employee receive under the "Minimum of the Pay Scale" doctrine?

Answer: Under the doctrine settled in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148, a temporary or contractual employee who establishes identity of duties and qualifications with regular employees is entitled to receive the minimum basic pay of the regular pay band / level (under the 7th Pay Commission Pay Matrix) along with admissible Dearness Allowance (DA). However, they are not automatically entitled to annual increments, House Rent Allowance (HRA), or City Compensatory Allowance (CCA), which remain tied to substantive cadre membership unless specifically granted by state rules or court orders.

Q2: Can the department defend against pay parity by showing that the recruitment process for contractual staff was different from regular staff?

Answer: No. The Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh specifically examined and rejected this defense. The Court held that the difference in the mode of selection (e.g., walk-in interview versus Public Service Commission competitive exam) is irrelevant for determining wage parity if the employee is in fact discharging the complete bundle of duties, responsibilities, and functions attached to the post. Once identical work is extracted, paying unequal wages constitutes unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14.

Q3: Does granting equal pay for equal work automatically mean the employee is regularized?

Answer: No. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436 and Sabha Shanker Dube (2019) 12 SCC 297 clarified that the right to equal pay for equal work is a distinct monetary right and does not equate to substantive regularization or absorption into the cadre. Regularization requires compliance with statutory service rules, sanctioned vacancies, and constitutional reservation quotas under the Uma Devi framework. An employee may be granted pay parity while continuing in a contractual capacity.

Q4: Can contractual employees claim back-pay arrears for the entire period of their past service?

Answer: While the right to equal pay is a continuing right, constitutional courts ordinarily apply the limitation principle laid down in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648. The High Court will typically restrict the monetary recovery of arrears to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition, preventing an excessive, sudden financial shock to the public exchequer while granting prospective full parity.

Sumanjari & Co. Advocates

Rooted in Law. Rising with You. | Your Right, Our Resolve.

Chamber Office: Chamber No. D-311, Block D, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP

Courts & Tribunals: Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench & Prayagraj) | UP RERA & UP REAT | Serving Noida, Ghaziabad & Lucknow

Key Contacts: Adv. Jitendra Tiwari (+91 82990 86204) | Adv. Aishwarya Pandey (+91 83024 71764)

Email: info.sumanjarirightsandremedies@gmail.com | Website: sumanjariadvocates.com

Disclaimer: For informational purposes only under Bar Council of India rules; does not constitute solicitation or legal advice.